"The most serious element of
these policies of war and business is not only the fact that such massive
expenditures are being spent on the destruction of our country, but that it is
now a business that benefits Mexican 'entrepreneurs' who are in collusion with
President Calderón. … Obama's 'war on drugs' has resulted in gigantic business
opportunities for companies tied to the interests of the U.S. Democratic
Party."

Raymundo Mateo Cruz, alias 'El Mata', after his arrest on charges of killing twelve people. Cruz is a suspected leader of the 'Michoacana Family' drug cartel. What can be done when a beauracracy created to battle a scourge becomes part of the scourge - by seeking to perpetuate itself? Fighting drugs is so profitable, there seems to be little desire to solve the problem.

The so called "war on
drugs" is, in addition to whatever else it is, a terrific business for a
number of huge corporations near and dear to American Democrats, as well as for
many businessmen linked to the Felipe Calderón Government. From their point of
view, extreme violence is good for business.

1.It should not be forgotten that U.S.
President Richard M. Nixon coined the term "war on drugs" in a speech
he gave on July 17, 1971, in which he pretended to be concerned by the rise in
drug consumption among soldiers in Vietnam. In fact, he was looking to take
advantage of the alarm he created by claiming that addiction had reached the
level of a "national emergency," which he did in order to ask
Congress for significant resources for, among other things, continuing to
generate new businesses centered on a supposed war on drug trafficking.

2.Therefore, from its origins, in addition to a
series of imperial political, strategic and military objectives, the notion of
a "war on drugs" concealed very clear economic interests on the part
of certain business consortiums associated with these interests and the federal
government, which could count on extraordinary funding approved by Capitol
Hill. Experts on Washington drug policy all agree that even after the commotion
of Nixon, nothing about broader U.S. policy has changed, which continued to be
governed by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which was nothing but an
expansion of the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act. And nothing changed, even after
the "war" was elevated to the status of law on January 28, 1972.The
only novelty is that since then, business has flourished.

3.Consequently, in the last few years,
Washington drug policy has followed this contradictory path. On the one hand,
the United States has been engaged in a permanent campaign to fight drugs and
provide “aid” to other countries, supposedly to discourage and reduce drug
production, which at times has even involved military intervention. On the
other, it invariably tended to preserve the drug trade as a great business,
overseen and directed from Washington, which has illicitly benefited even
senior-level politicians; while on the legal side, it has showered ever-greater
state resources on the issue and allowed multiple companies to develop a series
of “illegitimate” businesses.

4.The politics of the Barack Obama Government
in this matter have scrupulously followed the Nixonian model. And every time
the president has a political problem, he invokes Mexican drug cartels as a
threat of "national dimensions” to ask Congress for fresh resources -
without, however, cutting off support for the multinational corporations making
billions on "war on drugs" related business. In 2006, the weakness of
the spurious Felipe Calderón allowed Washington to maximize its domination of
Mexico while expanding its business network here.

5.Obama's “war on drugs” in Mexico has resulted
in gigantic business opportunities for a number of companies tied to the
interests of the U.S. Democratic Party. In a recent interview, author Jorge
Carrasco Araizaga tells of how private corporations long associated with the
U.S. military industry, in addition to some newer ones, have obtained lucrative
contracts from Washington to provide military equipment and materiel as well as
other products to both Mexico and the United States. This state of affairs has
been reinforced by the presence on Mexican territory of other U.S. government
agencies that have been authorized by Calderón to operate here, and which are
overseen by Rear Admiral Colin J. Kilrain, who is also a business expert.

6.Calderon's war policies have enormously
benefited multinationals - but not only them. Thanks to its intervention in
Mexico, the Pentagon has obtained even more resources from Congress: In October
2011, it asked for an additional $1.2 billion to operate on Mexican territory.
Meanwhile, the contracts for private companies keep on growing. At its birth,
the Mérida Initiative contained an “aid package” of $1.4 billion, but by 2008,
contracts with U.S. companies had reached $6.4 billion.

7.The most serious element of these policies of
war and business is not only the fact that such massive expenditures are being
spent on the destruction of our country, but that it is now a business that
benefits Mexican “entrepreneurs” who are in collusion with Calderón. It is a
scenario in which Mexican maquiladora produce U.S. military equipment (which
Calderón has failed to show off in Davos) and, in a deal that openly
contradicts the Constitution, immediately re-exports them back to the United
States. According to reports, last year Aero Company of Indianapolis received
$12 million to produce combat arms ear plugs in San Luis Potosí; JDS Uniphase
won $6 and $12 million contracts from the U.S. Marines to produce sophisticated
weapons and develop weapons testing systems in its plant in Guadalajara; and
Lockheed Martin of Orlando received $145 million to develop military vehicle
systems for Tijuana.

8.U.S. migration policies also support a huge
amount of business, from the construction of a border wall to detention centers
being built along the border. Why shouldn't the “war on narco-trafficking” be
big business, too? For that and other reasons, Calderón was terrified when on
May 13, 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, declared that because it is counterproductive, the Obama Administration
would never again use the concept of a "war on drugs." Since then,
after denying ever used the term himself, Obama has since sought to implement
his policies of terror by other means.

Posted by WORLDMEETS.US

9.Inordinate spending on anti-drug policy has done
anything but help end a business that is booming more than ever before. In
fact, the only thing that has happened is a massive reorganization that has
managed to sow a climate of violence and terror in the country and kill
Mexicans by the tens of thousands. It also gave a boost to a series of illegal
businesses that involve politicians and business leaders on both sides of the
border, which is why any future dismantling of this network of illegitimate
interests will be an extremely complicated task.

10. This confusion of public
and private interests, which is suffocating the peoples' cries of “enough!”
should be more openly described if we want to build a different country.